On This Page

Filter

These are the filters currently being used to limit the search results. Click on the
icon to remove the filter.

answering body

Attorney General

Sort by

This list shows the properties that you can sort by. Click on to sort in ascending order and to sort in descending order. The properties that you're currently sorting by are
shown at the top of the list. Click on to remove a sort and or to reverse the current sort order. Click on the icon to remove all the sorting. Note that sorting can significantly slow down the
loading of the page.

View

Choose what information you want to view about each item. There are some pre-defined
views, but starred properties are always present no matter what the view. You can
star properties by clicking on the icon. The currently starred icons have a icon; clicking on it will unstar the property.

<p><ins class="ministerial">Decisions on whether or not to bring criminal charges
are taken by prosecutors who are independent from government and independent from
Parliament. I am confident of the independence and the integrity of the Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP), Alison Saunders, in making the difficult judgements the
job of a prosecutor involves.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The Victims’ Right
to Review, which Alison Saunders helped to bring in, allows any victim of crime who
is dissatisfied with a decision taken by a prosecutor not to proceed with their case
to ask for the decision to be reviewed. This review has operated as it was designed
to in the case of Greville Janner.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">We are world
leaders in offering that safeguard for victims and since Alison Saunders has been
DPP, the CPS has prosecuted and convicted more child sex offenders than ever before.</ins></p><p>
</p><p><del class="ministerial">In the year to 31<sup>st </sup>December 2014, the
Law Officers personally considered 469 cases and referred 128 offenders to the Court
of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Leave was granted by the Court
in 95% of cases which included some of the most serious violent and sexual offences,
including murder, rape and sexual assault.</del></p><p><br /><del class="ministerial">The
Attorney General’s Office publishes statistics for unduly lenient sentences at the
end of the calendar year. This is to ensure that the figures are released in a consistent
format and are accurate and quality assured. Unduly lenient sentences statistics for
2013 and 2014 are published on the Attorney General’s Office website - <a href="http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/attorney-generals-office"
target="_blank">www.gov.uk/government/organisations/attorney-generals-office</a>.
</del></p>

To ask the Attorney General, how and why the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) joined
the Metropolitan Police in announcing that retired police sergeant Gurpal Virdi was
charged with misconduct in public office and with indecent assault on a person under
16 years; what publicity the CPS recorded as resulting at the time; when the memorandum
of a conviction proved 1 April 1987 for offences on 7 November 1986 of a defendant
born on 5 September 1970 with informant or complainant recorded as PC Markwick came
to the attention of the CPS; what steps were taken to put right the effect of the
wrong statement; when those steps were taken; and what the results of those steps
were.

<p>A press release was issued by the Metropolitan Police Service which stated that
the complainant was under 16. The CPS was not a party to this release and did not
issue any other release. The CPS does not retain records of publicity resulting at
the time.</p><p> </p><p>When the case was reviewed in 2014 for charging, the complainant
and the witness clearly stated that the complainant had been 15 when the incident
took place in 1986.<del class="ministerial"> In addition Mr Virdi also said in interview
that the complainant had been 15 at the time of the incident.</del> The police summary
stated that the complainant was 15. However the complainant’s date of birth and the
date of his arrest were known and this mistake should not have been made.</p><p> </p><p>The
CPS was supplied with the memorandum of conviction referred to on 17 September 2014.<del
class="ministerial">The indictment was formally amended thereafter.</del></p><p> </p><p>No
steps were taken to publicise the fact that the charge was later amended in open court
to remove the assertion that the complainant was under 16.</p>

To ask Her Majesty's Government under what authority the Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) has agreed a definition of racially and religiously aggravated crime that is
wider than the legal definition under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Criminal
Justice Act 2003, as indicated in the CPS Public statement on prosecuting racist and
religious hate crime published in August.

<p>In order to charge and prosecute hate crimes, the CPS uses the legal definition
provided by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Criminal Justice Act 2003. The shared
police and CPS definition of hate crime is based on the perception of the victim or
any other person and allows for case flagging and monitoring as well as appropriate
victim support, it does not affect the charge.</p><p>This flagging definition comes
from the recommended definition in the Macpherson report which was published in 1999
as a result of the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Macpherson Report
found a lack of confidence within communities that hate crime was being treated seriously
by the police and Criminal Justice System and recommended that the definition of a
racist incident should be, ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim
or any other person’. Putting the victim’s perception at the heart of the definition
gives a clear signal that, once flagged as a hate crime, an appropriate investigation
will follow and evidence to support the law on hostility will be proactively sought.
The definition seeks to encourage victims to report and to increase confidence in
the Criminal Justice System.</p>

To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in enabling the National
Fund charity to make appropriate donations; and whether they intend to apply to the
courts for a scheme allowing the Fund to be used for its original purpose.

<p>The National Fund was created in 1928 with an initial anonymous donation of £500,000
with the aim of eventually extinguishing the national debt. It has accumulated significant
funds through further donations and income over the years, as set out in the <strong><ins
class="ministerial">attached </ins></strong>chart <del class="ministerial">below</del>.
It is currently estimated to be worth over £460 million.</p><p>The terms of the deed
of Trust for the National Fund are such that the Trustees are required to accumulate
the net income and profits of the trust fund until the value of the fund along with
its accumulated income, when added to the value of any other funds applicable for
the same purpose, is sufficient to discharge the entirety of the National Debt. Given
the terms of the trust, the money is currently ‘locked’ in the fund.</p><p>The Attorney
General’s Office is working with the Charity Commission and the Fund’s trustees to
help resolve this legally complicated matter.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

To ask the Attorney General, how many judicial reviews there were involving Government
departments according to records held by the (a) Treasury Solicitor and (b) Administrative
Court Office in each of the last four years; and how many such reviews were upheld
in whole or in part in each such year.

<p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department holds records relating only to those cases
in which it has acted. The Treasury Solicitor represents most, but not all, government
departments in litigation. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally
conducts its own litigation. According to records held by the Treasury Solicitor,
the number of judicial reviews involving government departments in which it has acted
in each of the last four years is as follows:</p><p>2010 – 8,566</p><p>2011 – 9,603</p><p>2012
– 10,274</p><p>2013 – 16,449</p><p>Information relating to how many of those reviews
were upheld in whole or in part in each year is not held centrally and could not be
created without incurring disproportionate cost.</p><p><del class="ministerial">The
Administrative Court Office does not collate the information requested centrally and
determining the number of reviews and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or
in part would incur a disproportionate cost.</del></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The
information requested in respect of the Administrative Court Office is published online
at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls"
target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a>
. The 2013 data is not currently available.</ins></p>

<p>GLD expenditure on IPads and tablets (including VAT):</p><p> </p><p>2012: nil</p><p>2013:
nil</p><p>2014: £12,252.00</p><p>2015: nil</p><p>2016: £24,933.12</p><p> </p><p>GLD
has consistently consumed 13,960 boxes (69,800 reams) of paper per annum for the last
5 years. The cost for the period 2016-17 to date was £76,241. Accurate costs for earlier
periods cannot be determined except at disproportionate cost since they form part
of composite billing for all stationery.</p><p> </p><p>HMCPSI Expenditure on IPads
and tablets (including VAT):</p><p> </p><p>2012: nil</p><p>2013: nil</p><p>2014: nil</p><p>2015:
nil</p><p>2016: nil</p><p> </p><p>Accurate costs for paper purchases cannot be determined
except at disproportionate cost since they form part of composite billing for all
stationery.</p><p> </p><p>CPS and AGO</p><p> </p><p>The Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) has not spent any money on iPads in the last five years.</p><p> </p><p>The CPS,
including the Attorney General’s Office, spend on tablets over the last five years
has been provided in the table below:</p><p> </p><p>Year Cost of Tablet including
VAT(£)</p><p>2012 75,412</p><p>2013 0</p><p>2014 0</p><p>2015 46,077</p><p>2016 25,885*</p><p>*costs
are estimated for 2016</p><p> </p><p>(b) The CPS estimates that it has spent the following
amounts on paper over the last 5 years:</p><p> </p><p>Year Cost (£)</p><p>2012* 1,120,904</p><p>2013*
926,609</p><p>2014** 983,802</p><p>2015** 847,431</p><p>2016** 445,717</p><p>* costs
for 2012 and 2013 are based on historic data provided by CPS stationery suppliers</p><p>**
costs for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are estimated and based on total stationery spend for
the periods.</p><p>To identify all expenditure that relates solely and specifically
to paper would involve the manual checking of thousands of invoices and would incur
a disproportionate cost.</p><p>Accurate costs for AGO paper purchases cannot be determined
except at disproportionate cost since they form part of composite billing for all
stationery.</p><p><ins class="ministerial">SFO </ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The
SFO does not separately record paper costs from overall stationery expenditure.</ins></p><p><ins
class="ministerial"><em>Stationery Year Cost (£) </em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2012-13
64,094</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2013-14 69,657</em></ins></p><p><ins
class="ministerial"><em>2014-15 74,750</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2015-16
52,721</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2016-17* 40,916 </em></ins><ins
class="ministerial"></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>iPads &amp; Tablets
<em>Year Cost (£)</em></em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2012-13 0</em></ins></p><p><ins
class="ministerial"><em>2013-14 10,423</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2014-15
0</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2015-16 0</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>2016-17*
9,475</em></ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial"><em>*</em><strong><em>Spend as at
31/01/2017</em></strong></ins></p><p> </p>

To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 1 February 2018 to Question
123531 on Attorney General: procurement, if he will list those contracts including
the supplier name and value of those contracts.

<p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has the following contracts with the government’s
strategic suppliers:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Supplier</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Contract</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Estimated
Value*</strong> <strong> £</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BT Plc</p></td><td><p>Multiple
landline phones, alarms and broadband service agreements</p></td><td><p><em>143,500</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Capita</p></td><td><p>Contingent
Labour ONE Call-Off</p></td><td><p>136,900</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>CGI</p></td><td><p>Payroll
Call-Off</p></td><td><p>1,300,500</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Finance
and Resource Management System Call-Off</p></td><td><p>200,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>
</p></td><td><p>Managed ICT Services contract; and</p></td><td><p>300,000,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>
</p></td><td><p>Applications Support and Data Hosting Call-Off</p></td><td><p>19,000,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Microsoft</p></td><td><p>Multiple
licencing agreements.</p></td><td><p><em>172,000</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Oracle</p></td><td><p>Multiple
licencing agreements</p></td><td><p><em>470,000</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Vodafone</p></td><td><p>Videoconferencing
service Call-Off</p></td><td><p>700,000</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>*
The Estimated Value is given as the value for the contract Term where the department
has signed a Call-Off Contract and the annual spend to 31 January 2018 where the department
has renewable licensing arrangements.</em></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>For the Serious
Fraud Office (SFO), the contracts are:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Supplier</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2016/17</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BT
plc</p></td><td><p>£15,897</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Capita</p></td><td><p>£704,697</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Vodafone</p></td><td><p>£75,905</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>
</p><p>To identify overall contract values for the Government Legal Department (GLD),
Attorney General Office (AGO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)
would require the identification and examination of all awards made to the Strategic
Suppliers (as defined by the Crown Commercial Services) and this cannot be achieved
without incurring disproportionate cost. However, our payments to Strategic Suppliers,
for 2016-17 is set out below:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Strategic
Supplier </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Expenditure</strong> <strong>2016-17</strong>
<strong>GLD</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Expenditure</strong> <strong>2016-17</strong>
<strong>AGO</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Expenditure</strong> <strong>2016-17</strong>
<strong>HMCPSI</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Amey</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>£335,965</p></td><td><p>
</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>BT Plc</p></td><td><p>£1,699</p></td><td><p>£2,159</p></td><td><p>£1,308</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Capgemini</p></td><td><p>£88,914</p></td><td><p>
</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Capita</p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">£424,655</del>
<ins class="ministerial">£6,369,832 </ins></p></td><td><p>£847*</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Fujitsu</p></td><td><p>£561,131</p></td><td><p>
</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Microsoft</p></td><td><p>£62,178</p></td><td><p>
</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Mitie</p></td><td><p>£186,854</p></td><td><p>
</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Oracle</p></td><td><p>£34,126</p></td><td><p>
</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Vodafone</p></td><td><p>£226,794</p></td><td><p>£43,763</p></td><td><p>£8,779</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>
</p><p>* The payment for this amount piggy backed on the contract that SFO had with
Capita.</p><p> </p>

To ask the Attorney General, how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions have been
made by the Crown Prosecution Service under (i) Section 330 and (ii) Sections 327-329
of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in each of the last five years.

<p><ins class="ministerial">The official statistics relating to crime and policing
are maintained by the Home Office. Official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal
court proceedings, offenders brought to justice, the courts and the judiciary are
maintained by the Ministry of Justice.</ins></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The number
of prosecutions and convictions for offences under sections 327-330 of the Proceeds
of Crime Act 2002 can be found <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/738814/HO-Code-Tool-2017.xlsx"
target="_blank">here</a>.</ins></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><p><ins
class="ministerial"><strong>Number of prosecutions and convictions for offences under
sections 327-330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, 2013-2017</strong></ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"><strong>2013</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>2014</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"><strong>2015</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>2016</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"><strong>2017</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">
</ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Prosecutions</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">Section 327</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">981</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">880</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">1,063</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">841</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">878</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section
328</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">310</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">266</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">317</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">355</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">288</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">Section 329</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">1,050</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">944</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">921</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">797</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">737</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section
330</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">3</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">3</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">5</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">1</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">1</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Convictions</strong></ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">Section 327</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">520</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">447</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">550</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">601</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">537</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section
328</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">213</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">150</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">188</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">257</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">225</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">Section 329</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">527</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">541</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">594</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">567</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">581</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">Section
330</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">6</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">4</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">2</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">3</ins></p></td><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">1</ins></p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial"> </ins></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>
</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><ins class="ministerial">(1) The figures given in the
pivot table relate to defendants for whom these offences were the principal offences
for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more
offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same
disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence
for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.</ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented
are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been
extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence,
care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations
are taken into account when those data are used.</ins></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><ins
class="ministerial">(3) A defendant who appears before both magistrates’ court and
Crown Court may not do so within the same year, meaning for a given year convictions
may exceed prosecutions or sentences may not equal convictions. Defendants who appear
before both courts may be convicted at the Crown Court for a different offence to
that for which they were originally proceeded against at magistrates’ court.</ins></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><del
class="ministerial">Data on prosecutions and convictions is published by the MoJ and
can be found <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/733981/outcomes-by-offence-tool-2017-update.xlsx%20"
target="_blank">here</a>.</del></p><p> </p><p><del class="ministerial">A breakdown
of prosecutions and convictions for money laundering is as follows:</del></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td
colspan="6"><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>Table 1. Number of prosecutions and
convictions for money laundering, 2007-2017 (1)(2)(3)</strong></del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del
class="ministerial"><strong>Money Laundering</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>2013</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del
class="ministerial"><strong>2014</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>2015</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del
class="ministerial"><strong>2016</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial"><strong>2017</strong></del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del
class="ministerial"><strong>Prosecutions</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">2,349</del></p></td><td><p><del
class="ministerial">2,095</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">2,307</del></p></td><td><p><del
class="ministerial">1,998</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,906</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del
class="ministerial"><strong>Convictions</strong></del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,269</del></p></td><td><p><del
class="ministerial">1,143</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,336</del></p></td><td><p><del
class="ministerial">1,435</del></p></td><td><p><del class="ministerial">1,347</del></p></td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr><td><p><del
class="ministerial">(1) The figures given in the pivot table relate to defendants
for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with.
When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for
which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two
or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum
penalty is the most severe.</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del class="ministerial">(2)
Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete.
However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative
data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure
data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account
when those data are used.</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><del class="ministerial">(3)
A defendant who appears before both magistrates’ court and Crown Court may not do
so within the same year, meaning for a given year convictions may exceed prosecutions
or sentences may not equal convictions. Defendants who appear before both courts may
be convicted at the Crown Court for a different offence to that for which they were
originally proceeded against at magistrates’ court.</del></p></td></tr></tbody></table>